ORDER
1. This is an application under Order 6, Rule 17 read with Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code for making certain amendments to the plaint.
2. The suit No. 804 of 1980 has been filed by the plaintiff M/s. Ansal Properties & Industrial (P) Ltd. for enforcement of a contract dated 6-7-1977. The suit had been filed against various persons. There were in the original plaint, as many as 32 defendants.
3. One of the amendments sought by this application is that the plaintiff be permitted to claim damages in the event the agreement dated 6-7-1977 is not to be specifically performed. This is contained in para 14C.
4. Counsel for the defendants have no objection to this amendment being allowed, as well as the consequential amendment in the prayer clause.
5. Accordingly, this amendment is allowed.
6. The other amendment which was proposed by the plaintiff was mentioned in the title of the plaint, which relates to defendant No. 4, Dr. Madhu Bala, and defendant No.13, Dr. Sneh Lata Sood, It is not disputed by the plaintiff that in the original suit both these defendants have been stated to be the daughters of Dr. Raghu Nath. By the proposed amendment, their description is sought to be altered to that of “the wife of Dr. Narottam Puri, and the wife of Shri S. P. Sood” respectively. The object of carrying out this amendment is to, raise a plea that Dr. Madhu Bala Puri and Dr. Sneh Lata Sood are not the children or not the legit mate children of Dr. Raghu Nath, who it is not disputed was the owner of property No. 27, Katurba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi, which is the subject matter of this suit and the agreement dated 6-7-1977.
7. The other amendments which are sought are paras 14A, 14B and 14C of the plaint. It is sought to be averred that Smt. Sumitra Devi is not the widow of Dr. Raghu Nath, and Shakti Nath, is asserted, not to be the son of Dr. Raghu Nath. It is also stated in the proposed amendment 14A that Dr. Madhu Bala Puri and Dr. Sneh Lata Bood are not the daughters of Dr. Raghu Nath. It is asserted by Mr. A. K. Jain that the plaintiff is entitled to do by amendment as the question involved is of title of these persons, namely, Sumitra Devi, Shakti Nath, Dr. Madhu Bala Puri and Dr. Sneh Lata to acquire the title to the properties of Dr. Raghu Nath. The assertion in the proposed amendment is clearly to the effect that Smt. Sumitra Devi is not the widow of, Shakti Nath is not the son of, and Dr. Madhu Bala Puri and Dr. Sneh Lata Bood are not the daughters of Dr. Raghu Nath. These questions, in my view, cannot be the subject matter of pleadings in a suit for specific performance of an agreement. At best the document dated 6-7-1977 is the contract which is liable to be enforced specifically by a Court. In a suit to determine whether the contract is to be specifically performed, in my view, the question of status, namely, whether a person is a widow, whether a person is a son, or person is a daughter of a person, now dead, ought not to be decided at all. Matter of contract and matter of status are wide apart. No relief can be claimed by the party to contract who is stranger to the family of Dr. Raghu Nath to determine the matter of status of his widow and widow and children. Status of an individual can be separately determined by means of a suit by a person who has locus standi to institute such a suit.
8. In my view, the question of status ought not to be tried as a matter of enforcement of an alleged contract.
9. In a matter for enforcement of a contract, it would not be right to determine the question of legitimacy of any children.
10. Mr. A. K. Jain seeks to call in aid of Section 19(c) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, for the purpose of saying that the question of widowhood, or question of legitimacy of children of Dr. Raghu Nath can be determined in the suit. Section 19(c) of the Specific Relief Act reads as under:-
“Except as provided by this chapter, specific performance of a contract may be enforced against —
(c) any person claiming under a title which , though prior to the contract and known to the plaintiff, might have been displaced by the defendant.”
11. A reading of this provision indicates that Section 19(c) relates to matters of contract and a prior contract, Sumitra Devi, Shakti Nath, Dr. Madhu Bala Puri and Dr. Sneh Lata Sood are not claiming under a contract. Apart from this, they are not claiming any title under a contract. Their status as widow, as a son and as daughter of Dr. Raghu Nath was recognised by the plaintiff in the first instance by the suit that was filed by saying that these persons were claimants to the properties of Dr. Raghu Nath under a family settlement.
12. I do not think S. 19(c) of the Specific Relief Act helps the plaintiff at all.
13. I do not think in the facts and circumstances of the instant case, it can be said that the legitimacy to widowhood, son, or daughter relationship can be stated to be a matter of title.
14. Mr, A. K. Jain has referred to , (Prasanna Kumar Sarma v. Satish Chandra Sarma). That case related to determination of the question whether some persons were necessary or proper parties to the suit based upon some title, In the instant case, Sumitra Devi, the widow, Shakti Nath, the son, Dr. Madhu Bala and Dr. Sneh Lata , the daughters are stated to be such of Dr, Raghu Nath, who are already parties to the suit. has, therefore, no application to the present case. .I repeatedly asked Mr. A. K. Jain to give me any decided case which establishes that in a suit for specific performance, it is permissible to determine the legitimacy or illegitimacy of the children. He said in response that he has no case with him.
15. Besides all this, there is another matter to be considered. By order passed by me on 31-8-1989. I had stated as follows: –
“The plaintiff wanted to get framed an issue, “whether defendant No. 7 was the lawfully wedded wife of late Dr. Raghu Nath, and whether defendants Nos. 8, 12 and 13 are the children of late Dr. Raghu Nath from a lawfully wedded wife of late Dr. Raghu Nath?”
In my view, in view of the nature of the suit filed by the plaintiff, it is not permissible for the plaintiff to raise the aforesaid pleas, or to have them adjudicated upon in this suit, as the suit is for specific performance of the agreement dated 6-7-1977.”
16. An appeal was preferred against this order, which was passed by me at the time of hearing of the issues. This was F.A.S. (OS) 161 of 1989. This appeal came to be dealt with by an order of a Division Bench, comprising of Leila Seth and V. B. Barisal, JJ. on 3-10-1989. The Division Bench observed as under:-
“It is pointed out by counsel for the respondents that in suit No. 405 of 1972 the fact that respondent No. 7, Sumitra Devi was the wife of late Dr. Raghu Nath and respondents 8, 12 and 13 were their children, was accepted by the appellant.
In an application, being I.A. 1270 of 1988 filed by the plaintiff/appellant in the present suit bearing No. 804 of 1980 it has been asserted on affidavit affirmed on 9th Maroh, 1988 by the appellant that respondents 1 to 8 are the co-owners of the property. In the said suit defendant/respondent No.7 is Sumitra Devi and respondent No.8 is Shakti Nath, son of Sumitra Devi.
“In this view of the matter, we find no reason to interfere with the impugned order. Dismissed.”
17. In my view, the plaintiff, in this suit for specific performance of a contract cannot be permitted to get out of his admission earlier made, or to fill in the alleged lacunae by an amendment, which he is seeking today. In any case, it is not permissible to the plaintiff to convert the suit for specific performance into a legitimacy trial as well, that will be an entirely different cause of action, and he is unlikely to have any locus standi to institute a suit for determining legitimacy of the children of Dr. Raghu Nath. (Although I do not decide locus standi issue one way or the other).
18. An amendment, which is sought by the plaintiff, which relates to for division of property, in other words partition. That relief would be available to the plaintiff only in accordance with the provisions of the Specific Relief Act, not otherwise. Section 22 of the Specific Relief Act says that the relief of possession, partition or separate possession has to be claimed as a relief in the plaint. That relief was not claimed in the plaint, as originally filed. Such a relief would now be barred by time.
19. In this view of the matter, apart from the amendment which has been conceded and allowed, the proposed amendments are rejected.
20. It is to be noted that in (Nazir Ahmad v. King Emperor) it is clearly laid down that if a statute gives power to do a certain thing in a certain way the thing must be done in that way or not at all. Other methods of performance are necessarily forbidden.
21. Section 22 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 permits the plaintiff to file a suit and seek reliefs, which are postulated thereby. The relief, which has become barred by time, cannot be permitted to be raised at this stage.
22. The amendment plaint be filed within one week.
23. I A. stands disposed of.
24. Order accordingly.